Will you Supprt Inclusive Language 2020 Nasb?

[Yeshua1]

In the following essay by D.A. Carson in his The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation he refers to the TNIV. The 2011 NIV had not yet been published. But the points he makes are still relevant.
"The charge is made that the TNIV obscures the quotation from Ps. 8:4, mistranslates three words by turning them into plurals, and loses the messianic plication of 'son of man' to Jesus Christ. I have probably said enough about the use of the plural. Whether the TNIV obscures the connection with Ps. 8:4, will depend a bit on how it translates which has not been published. The serious charge, in my view, is that this loses the messianic application to Jesus Christ. Yet here, too, the charge is less than fair. The expression 'son of man' in the Old Testament can have powerful messianic overtones, of course (see Daniel 7:13,14), but it is far from being invariable: about eighty times it is used as a form of address to the prophet Ezekiel, without any messianic overtone whatsoever. So whether the expression has messianic content or not must be argued, not merely asserted. In Psalm 8, the overwhelming majority of commentators see the expression as a gentilic, parallel to the Hebrew for 'man' in the preceding line. 9Incidentally, gentilic nouns in Hebrew are often singular in form but plural in referent --which may also address the indignation over the shift to the plural.) In the context of the application of Psalm 8:4 to Jesus in Hebrews 2, one should at least recognize that the nature of the application to Jesus is disputed. Scanning my commentaries on Hebrews (I have about forty of them), over three-quarters of them do not think that 'son of man' here functions as a messianic title but simply as a gentilic, as in Psalm 8. If this exegesis is correct (and I shall argue elsewhere and at length that it is), Jesus is said to be 'son of man,' not in function the messianic force of that title in Daniel 7:13-14, but in function of his becoming a human being --which all sides recognize is one of the major themes of Hebrews 2. If one wishes to take the opposite tack --that 'son of man' here is a messianic title --there are competent interpreters who have taken that line. But it is not a matter of theological orthodoxy, since understanding the text one way does not mean that the translator (or the commentator) is denying the complementary truth but is merely asserting that the complementary truth is not in view here."

Problerm here is that the Lord Himself self identified as being the one spoken of in Psalms and in Daniel as the Son of man!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't suppose that very many here will be the least bit interested in the person who is shortly to become Archbishop of York, and there's no reason why you should be. However, in Britain, it is quite a big deal. The AB of Y is No. 2 in the Church of England hierarchy and his pronouncements are very often covered in the newspapers and on the BBC.

The new man is called Stephen Cottrell, and he is a liberal and is in favour of celebrating same-sex 'marriages' and the blessings of transgender people. In one of his speeches he quoted from Genesis 2:18 as follows: 'It is not good for human beings to be alone,' and he went on to stress that hom**exuals in 'stable relationships' should be accorded all the benefits of the C of E.

I don't know what Bible version he was using, or if it was his own rendering, but once you have replaced 'man' with 'people' or 'human beings' in your Bible, where do you stop? It is a slippery slope that will lead us gross error and the denial of God's righteous commandments.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't suppose that very many here will be the least bit interested in the person who is shortly to become Archbishop of York, and there's no reason why you should be. However, in Britain, it is quite a big deal. The AB of Y is No. 2 in the Church of England hierarchy and his pronouncements are very often covered in the newspapers and on the BBC.

The new man is called Stephen Cottrell, and he is a liberal and is in favour of celebrating same-sex 'marriages' and the blessings of transgender people. In one of his speeches he quoted from Genesis 2:18 as follows: 'It is not good for human beings to be alone,' and he went on to stress that hom**exuals in 'stable relationships' should be accorded all the benefits of the C of E.

I don't know what Bible version he was using, or if it was his own rendering, but once you have replaced 'man' with 'people' or 'human beings' in your Bible, where do you stop? It is a slippery slope that will lead us gross error and the denial of God's righteous commandments.

There is a subtle influence being wielded on and into some modern translations, as there will not be one that just comes and states Homosexuality is legit, but will eventually bit by bit get there!

 

[Jerome]

I don't suppose that very many here will be the least bit interested in the person who is shortly to become Archbishop of York

I saw this in December and put it my bookmarks for potential thread topics.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't suppose that very many here will be the least bit interested in the person who is shortly to become Archbishop of York, and there's no reason why you should be. However, in Britain, it is quite a big deal. The AB of Y is No. 2 in the Church of England hierarchy and his pronouncements are very often covered in the newspapers and on the BBC.

The new man is called Stephen Cottrell, and he is a liberal and is in favour of celebrating same-sex 'marriages' and the blessings of transgender people. In one of his speeches he quoted from Genesis 2:18 as follows: 'It is not good for human beings to be alone,' and he went on to stress that hom**exuals in 'stable relationships' should be accorded all the benefits of the C of E.

I don't know what Bible version he was using, or if it was his own rendering, but once you have replaced 'man' with 'people' or 'human beings' in your Bible, where do you stop? It is a slippery slope that will lead us gross error and the denial of God's righteous commandments.

What is the viewpoint of the archbishop of Canterbury?

 

[Rippon2]

A well-reasoned article by D. A. Carson gets a zero response. None of you wants to have a meaningful interaction?

 

[Rippon2]

The new man is called Stephen Cottrell, and he is a liberal and is in favour of celebrating same-sex 'marriages' and the blessings of transgender people. In one of his speeches he quoted from Genesis 2:18 as follows: 'It is not good for human beings to be alone,' and he went on to stress that hom**exuals in 'stable relationships' should be accorded all the benefits of the C of E.

I don't know what Bible version he was using, or if it was his own rendering, but once you have replaced 'man' with 'people' or 'human beings' in your Bible, where do you stop? It is a slippery slope that will lead us gross error and the denial of God's righteous commandments.

Of course in the context of which Cottrell spoke "human beings" or "people" is not warranted at all. However, when you make it a universal rule as you implied with "But once you have replaced 'man' with 'people' or 'human beings in your Bible, where do you stop?" That is untenable. Of course your preference not to use collective terms is your own choice. But it is not sound or reasonable. There are many places in the Bible when those terms are quite suitable and orthodox theology will not suffer a whit.

 

[Rippon2]

There is a subtle influence being wielded on and into some modern translations, as there will not be one that just comes and states Homosexuality is legit, but will eventually bit by bit get there!

You will be at a total loss to document anything, but I will attempt to ask you to prove it by citing any evidence to back up our theory. Among other things your theory is rather nebulous. You say there is a subtle influence on some modern translations. But you acknowledge that none comes out clearly in support of hom _ _ _ _ _ _lity. Then you say bit by bit it will come. Of course it's just your thoughts on the matter, whether right or wrong. But it would be nice once in a blue moon to see some evidence when you make claims. I doubt that you read any Bible translations aside from your primary one. You said you have a CSB, but you are quite unfamiliar with it.

 

[Yeshua1]

You will be at a total loss to document anything, but I will attempt to ask you to prove it by citing any evidence to back up our theory. Among other things your theory is rather nebulous. You say there is a subtle influence on some modern translations. But you acknowledge that none comes out clearly in support of hom _ _ _ _ _ _lity. Then you say bit by bit it will come. Of course it's just your thoughts on the matter, whether right or wrong. But it would be nice once in a blue moon to see some evidence when you make claims. I doubt that you read any Bible translations aside from your primary one. You said you have a CSB, but you are quite unfamiliar with it.

Currently have and use Nas/esv/ 1984 Niv, have also used Csb and Nlt in the past!

 

[Rippon2]

Currently have and use Nas/esv/ 1984 Niv, have also used Csb and Nlt in the past!

The point of my post which you posted in full is: document modern versions that are doing what you claimed. If you can't then you were just thinking out loud with no substance behind it.

 

[Yeshua1]

The point of my post which you posted in full is: document modern versions that are doing what you claimed. If you can't then you were just thinking out loud with no substance behind it.

We will see the end fruit later on down the line!

 

[Rippon2]

We will see the end fruit later on down the line!

Where is the evidence you'd like to submit in which some modern versions have been under this subtle influence? If you can't prove it, then onto your next pronouncement.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where is the evidence you'd like to submit in which some modern versions have been under this subtle influence? If you can't prove it, then onto your next pronouncement.

Already have, concerning the Niv 2011

 

[Rippon2]

Already have, concerning the Niv 2011

Your history of lies regarding the NIV offers no such proof. Again, you were thinking out loud with some idle thoughts
that cannot be backed up with anything specific from any modern Bible translation. Again, you have come up with a fat zero. Thanks for your contribution.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Of course in the context of which Cottrell spoke "human beings" or "people" is not warranted at all. However, when you make it a universal rule as you implied with "But once you have replaced 'man' with 'people' or 'human beings in your Bible, where do you stop?" That is untenable. Of course your preference not to use collective terms is your own choice. But it is not sound or reasonable. There are many places in the Bible when those terms are quite suitable and orthodox theology will not suffer a whit.

As usual you miss the point spectacularly. If there were no Bibles changing singulars into plurals and changing 'man' into 'human being' without the slightest Biblical authority, the Archbishop could not get away with his misquotation. But because you and your ilk (including, alas, Don Carson) have sold the pass, he can get away with them easily.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In the following essay by D.A. Carson in his The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation he refers to the TNIV. The 2011 NIV had not yet been published. But the points he makes are still relevant.
"The charge is made that the TNIV obscures the quotation from Ps. 8:4, mistranslates three words by turning them into plurals, and loses the messianic plication of 'son of man' to Jesus Christ. I have probably said enough about the use of the plural. Whether the TNIV obscures the connection with Ps. 8:4, will depend a bit on how it translates which has not been published. The serious charge, in my view, is that this loses the messianic application to Jesus Christ. Yet here, too, the charge is less than fair. The expression 'son of man' in the Old Testament can have powerful messianic overtones, of course (see Daniel 7:13,14), but it is far from being invariable: about eighty times it is used as a form of address to the prophet Ezekiel, without any messianic overtone whatsoever. So whether the expression has messianic content or not must be argued, not merely asserted. In Psalm 8, the overwhelming majority of commentators see the expression as a gentilic, parallel to the Hebrew for 'man' in the preceding line. 9Incidentally, gentilic nouns in Hebrew are often singular in form but plural in referent --which may also address the indignation over the shift to the plural.) In the context of the application of Psalm 8:4 to Jesus in Hebrews 2, one should at least recognize that the nature of the application to Jesus is disputed. Scanning my commentaries on Hebrews (I have about forty of them), over three-quarters of them do not think that 'son of man' here functions as a messianic title but simply as a gentilic, as in Psalm 8. If this exegesis is correct (and I shall argue elsewhere and at length that it is), Jesus is said to be 'son of man,' not in function the messianic force of that title in Daniel 7:13-14, but in function of his becoming a human being --which all sides recognize is one of the major themes of Hebrews 2. If one wishes to take the opposite tack --that 'son of man' here is a messianic title --there are competent interpreters who have taken that line. But it is not a matter of theological orthodoxy, since understanding the text one way does not mean that the translator (or the commentator) is denying the complementary truth but is merely asserting that the complementary truth is not in view here."

He misses the point. He has no right to change singulars into plurals -- end of story. Why not leave the Biblical text the way the Holy Spirit wrote it? Then there won't be any problem. Whether Don Carson and a thousand other scholars think Psalm 8 is a reference to Christ or not is beside the point (though John 5:39 might give him a hint). The point is that 'Son of Man' is singular, both in Psalm 8 and in Hebrews 2. So leave it that way!

 

[Rippon2]

In the following essay by D.A. Carson in his The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation he refers to the TNIV. The 2011 NIV had not yet been published. But the points he makes are still relevant.
In Psalm 8, the overwhelming majority of commentators see the expression as a gentilic, parallel to the Hebrew for 'man' in the preceding line. 9Incidentally, gentilic nouns in Hebrew are often singular in form but plural in referent --which may also address the indignation over the shift to the plural.) In the context of the application of Psalm 8:4 to Jesus in Hebrews 2, one should at least recognize that the nature of the application to Jesus is disputed. Scanning my commentaries on Hebrews (I have about forty of them), over three-quarters of them do not think that 'son of man' here functions as a messianic title but simply as a gentilic, as in Psalm 8. But it is not a matter of theological orthodoxy, since understanding the text one way does not mean that the translator (or the commentator) is denying the complementary truth but is merely asserting that the complementary truth is not in view here."

MM, I have abridged Carson's article so that you can understand more fully what he is saying, especially regarding singulars and plurals.

 

[Rippon2]

As usual you miss the point spectacularly. If there were no Bibles changing singulars into plurals and changing 'man' into 'human being' without the slightest Biblical authority, the Archbishop could not get away with his misquotation. But because you and your ilk (including, alas, Don Carson) have sold the pass, he can get away with them easily.

The Archbishop was not citing any Bible translation; it was of his own derivation. Don't get it twisted as the cool kids say.

 

[rlvaughn]

A well-reasoned article by D. A. Carson gets a zero response. None of you wants to have a meaningful interaction?

Do you want it? Some of us have things to do once in awhile that prevents responses as soon as you would like. Don't get all twisted.

As Martin writes,

He misses the point. He has no right to change singulars into plurals -- end of story. Why not leave the Biblical text the way the Holy Spirit wrote it? Then there won't be any problem. Whether Don Carson and a thousand other scholars think Psalm 8 is a reference to Christ or not is beside the point (though John 5:39 might give him a hint). The point is that 'Son of Man' is singular, both in Psalm 8 and in Hebrews 2. So leave it that way!

The Archbishop was not citing any Bible translation; it was of his own derivation. Don't get it twisted as the cool kids say.

A careful reading of what Martin wrote shows he did not say the Archbishop was citing a Bible translation but stating how the change in language makes it easier for people to think that he was.

 

[Rippon2]

I don't know what Bible version he was using, or if it was his own rendering,

Just to clarify what MM said.